Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission; Consideration of Senate Message | Resolutions of the Senate | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-04-04.135.2&m=735#g138.1
I second the amendment. The most economically efficient way for the federal government to help the river is to return more water to the system through water buybacks. This is more efficient than...I second the amendment. The most economically efficient way for the federal government to help the river is to return more water to the system through water buybacks. This is more efficient than infrastructure or efficiency spends. The water buyback cap was put in place by this government. It was not part of the original plan and it should be removed. Why shouldn't a small irrigator be able to sell to whomever they want? Over here, you talk about free market all the time. That is a free market. If they want to sell their water allocation to the government and benefit the river, why should we, in this place, stand in their way? Is it because the large irrigators are saying one thing to government? Well, I think so. It does not suit their interests but it does suit the river. This government, as I think we've seen, does not care about the little guys any more. It certainly doesn't care about the end of the river, the most vulnerable part of the river.

The minister wants us to stop talking about politics. That's fine; let's talk about science. That is something we don't talk about enough in here. The Australian Academy of Science rereleased a detailed report on the Menindee fish kills—the investigation of the causes of the fish kills in the Menindee region, New South Wales, over the summer of 2018-19. I tabled this report in the House in February this year. A key recommendation of the academy's expert panel was that the government should:

Return to the intent of the 2012 Murray-Darling Basin Plan to avoid increasing risks of more fish kills and other environmental problems for the Darling River.

Now, the minister and his government cannot cherrypick which parts of science they want to follow. You need to follow the science as it is, and this was the expert panel's position:

Repeal the cap on 1500 GL on water buybacks … from willing irrigators to recover water at the least cost to taxpayers, and fund additional infrastructure, constraint and supply projects, only where independent reviews find with high confidence that they provide required hydrological, ecological, cultural and economic benefits.

The Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission provides yet more evidence that repealing the water buybacks is an urgent and necessary step. Recommendation 8 from the royal commission says:

Future water recovery for the environment, including the 450 GL, should be purchased through buyback. This requires repeal of the 1500 GL cap on buybacks in sec 85C of the Water Act.

I remind the minister: the cap was not there in the original plan in 2012; it was part of the then Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources', the member for New England's, thought bubbles. It was not there in the original plan. So let's be very clear as to what was in the original plan and then what was distorted by this government.

The coalition are governing the Murray just like they govern their parties—for short-term, vested political interest, and not for the long-term benefit of this country as a whole. So I conclude with a question that I will leave hanging in the air: when will this government govern for the long-term benefit of all communities that rely on the Murray—not just the ones in their National Party seats, not just the ones in the eastern states, but actually the whole river and the most vulnerable part of the river? I call on every South Australian MP in this place—and particularly the member for Barker, who has a large section of the river, and the members for Sturt and Boothby—to vote for your state and what your state needs and not for your party. Every single South Australian will be watching how you vote today. Vote for the science, not for the politics.

]]>2019-04-04T17:58:00+00:00Political Fundraising | Questions to the Speaker | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-04-04.111.2&m=735#g111.3
Under standing order 103, I have a question that relates to the administration of the House. On Tuesday, I understand that members of the coalition held events in Parliament House, the peoples'...Under standing order 103, I have a question that relates to the administration of the House. On Tuesday, I understand that members of the coalition held events in Parliament House, the peoples' house, of up to $800 a seat for the purpose of political fundraising. May I ask that you please inform the House whether there are any rules, guidelines or restrictions on using the peoples' house as a venue to raise funds for political parties? ]]>2019-04-04T15:27:00+00:00Budget | Questions without Notice | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-04-04.67.1&m=735#g69.1
My question is to the Treasurer. There are 128,000 elderly Australians who are waiting for a home care package, with delays of up to two years. The waiting list grows by 20,000 every six months....My question is to the Treasurer. There are 128,000 elderly Australians who are waiting for a home care package, with delays of up to two years. The waiting list grows by 20,000 every six months. I have many elderly constituents desperately waiting for help with showering and with keeping their homes clean. As 93-year-old Jack said to me, 'If we can't get help at this age, how bad does it have to get?' Treasurer, why did you fund just 10,000 new home care packages in your budget? Why are you treating our most vulnerable older Australians this way? ]]>2019-04-04T14:18:00+00:00Intergenerational Welfare Dependence; Report | Committees | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-04-03.181.2&m=735#g181.3
It was a privilege to be part of this committee. I thank: the member for McMillan, as chair; the hardworking secretariat; those who made submissions and appeared before the committee; and of...It was a privilege to be part of this committee. I thank: the member for McMillan, as chair; the hardworking secretariat; those who made submissions and appeared before the committee; and of course my fellow committee members for their combined efforts in bringing this valuable report, Living on the edge: inquiry into intergenerational welfare dependence, to fruition.

Intergenerational poverty is a wicked problem without simple solutions. Disadvantage has become entrenched and breaking vulnerable Australians out of the path of dependence is not easy. For the most disadvantaged Australians, not only do opportunities first need to exist but people need to be supported so that those opportunities can fall within their grasp. Supporting Australians to escape the intergenerational poverty trap should be seen, I believe, as an investment, not a cost.

But, as with any investment, we need to ensure that Australians receive a social return on their investment. To ensure this, we need to adopt a wraparound support program that works. The term 'wraparound' generally means a holistic approach that does not look at individual, singular interventions. It looks at the whole person and the whole circumstance around them and their whole community. For example, access to better medical care to ensure our disadvantaged Australians are fit and healthy for work will not be enough if those people have no access to affordable housing or, indeed, public transport, or if they are trapped in homes where domestic violence prevails.

This is why the first recommendation of the report is so important; namely, that the Australian government needs:

… to prioritise funding for place-based and wrap-around services that can demonstrate evidence of successful programs for people living with entrenched disadvantage.

We know what works. We don't need to debate this anymore. The social services sector has been working on these issues for decades now, which leads me to a second but equally important recommendation of this report—recommendation 4. I will quote it in full:

The Committee recommends that funding arrangements for welfare-related programs are reviewed, with a view to avoiding short-term funding cycles. Three to five year agreements, with annual extensions subject to meeting agreed performance measures, would assist with funding certainty, while ensuring progress and satisfactory outcomes are achieved.

In plainer English, we need to stop chop-changing programs all the time. We have a program that works really well, and then we get rid of it after three years because it's a Labor program. Then we have a change in government and we have a program that works really well. Why did we get rid of it? Because it was branded as a Liberal program. We know what works; we need to allow continuity. These problems are intergenerational; they have been there for a very long time. We are not going to turn around the problem in a mere two or three years.

Even a modicum of better planning from state and federal governments will avoid these unnecessary valleys of death. I worked in social services for a number of years, in the youth sector. The best staff leave when they know a program is ending. It then takes an extraordinary period of time to ramp up for a new program, and to try to get the staff. In the meantime, communities are left with no support. Then, when new supports come in, they're expected to embrace those new employees, who are working on an entirely different program with a new set of parameters. What happens is, particularly in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, there is an overwhelming feeling of distrust—naturally there's a feeling of distrust—that this program, too, will end and that they will be in the same circumstances, or perhaps worse, when they end.

My time is limited in here, and I don't wish to take up too much of the Federation Chamber's time, but I will say this: we often, in this place, hear speeches where people say, 'People just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.' But what do you do when you don't have any boots? One of the greatest privileges of my life was working in the youth sector. I remember a young person—we only found him by happenstance—who had a little two-man tent; he was camped out behind one of our jobactive organisations. We found this young man, who was homeless, and we were able to support him into housing and then into education and employment. If you are 18 years of age, you can't read and you have nowhere to live, there is no point being told, 'Pull yourself up by your bootstraps,' if you don't even have a pair of boots.

]]>2019-04-03T16:16:00+00:00Budget | Constituency Statements | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-04-03.147.1&m=735#g147.2
Well, it was pleasing to hear yesterday that Mayo roads were in the budget; however, I am concerned about the time frames, particularly for Victor Harbor Road. Sadly, Mayo roads are...Well, it was pleasing to hear yesterday that Mayo roads were in the budget; however, I am concerned about the time frames, particularly for Victor Harbor Road. Sadly, Mayo roads are over-represented in major crashes and fatalities. We are heartbroken when we lose another member of our community, and, sadly, we lose far too many on our regional roads, so I do welcome the government's commitment for $550 million for the Black Spot Program for roads. This is essential money, but the question is whether it is enough funding. But certainly it is essential money, and I will be strongly advocating for a good percentage of those funds to be going into Mayo and, indeed, into South Australia.

With regard to the Main South Road to Victor Harbor Road upgrade at McLaren Vale, while it is pleasing to see that in the budget there is $73 million put to one side, I am concerned about where that funding sits within the forward estimates. Any local in Mayo knows that that's actually not the area of the road that we need the funding for. We need the funding to go all the way down to Victor Harbor. We need the duplication of Victor Harbor Road. The challenges for us start between Mount Compass and Victor Harbor. Very few locals talk to me about the challenges between McLaren Vale and the Main South Road intersection—it's more the other end of Victor Harbor. So I will be continuing my fight for as long as I'm in this place to make sure that we get funding for the duplication of Victor Harbor Road. Some overtaking lanes in the first instance would be a very good start. The RAA say this needs to be done, that a $600 million investment is needed, and I will continue to fight for that.

I am pleased to see supplementary road funding continuing for South Australia. This helps our regional councils. This recognises that South Australia has 11 per cent of the nation's local roads, but receives less than five per cent of the funding. This is the continuation of the supplementary road funding, and this is what NXT, now Centre Alliance, negotiated for in very difficult circumstances, very challenging circumstances, with the government a couple of years ago. This funding was due to run out this June. My councils were so concerned about how they were going to fund their roads, so I'm very pleased to see that that $40 million is there and will continue to be funded for another two years.

South Australia's road network is in a state of disrepair across much of South Australia, and so we will be looking to the next federal government—no matter who is in government—and I will be saying to them: 'You need to make sure that you invest properly in South Australia's roads. Our lives depend on it.'

]]>2019-04-03T10:25:00+00:00Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment) Bill 2019; Second Reading | Bills | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-04-03.14.2&m=735#g16.1
Remember how the government promised that by scrapping the carbon tax we would reduce our energy bills? I remember. Remember how the Minister for the Environment and Energy promised to deliver a...Remember how the government promised that by scrapping the carbon tax we would reduce our energy bills? I remember. Remember how the Minister for the Environment and Energy promised to deliver a $550-a-year saving on all of our energy bills when they were going to pass the NEG, the National Energy Guarantee?

And then, of course, the government decided to pull their own legislation, and we got nowhere with that. So many broken promises! I have always been happy to work constructively with government on energy policy and any other policy that they bring to this chamber. But really, with respect to energy, they haven't given us much to work with.

Back in 2017, my Centre Alliance colleagues and I negotiated a one-off energy assistance payment as a stopgap measure to help some of the most vulnerable in our community manage to get through that winter, on the promise that there was going to be that $550 saving. Of course, we never saw the saving. We did get that energy supplement through—and, remember, at the time, the government were also looking to scrap the fortnightly energy supplement that goes to many welfare recipients. They wanted to scrap that for new ones because we didn't have a carbon tax. That didn't bring into mind the fact that energy bills were rising despite that.

As part of our negotiations then, an estimated 3.8 million Australians obtained relief for their energy bills with a one-off payment of $75 for singles and $125 for pensioners. At that time I was, as I am now, particularly concerned about households that are on low, fixed incomes and for whom full-time work or part-time work is not a realistic option. These are people who receive the age pension, the disability support pension, parenting payment single and various veterans payments.

Now the government admits that the temporary stopgap measure originally negotiated by Centre Alliance must become a temporarily permanent-style payment. Without a doubt, I fully support the additional assistance for our most vulnerable Australians to keep the lights on and the heaters running. But it's a great shame that we missed the opportunity in this place to get through the NEG or to get through some sort of energy policy so that we can have a more permanent, meaningfully addressed way of reducing energy bills. Last time I spoke in this place on the energy assistance payment, I explained how I'd spoken to an elderly lady who could barely move from her bedroom because she could not afford the heating bills for more than one room in her home.

I question why the government, with respect to the payment that they announced just a few days ago and that was referred to in the budget last night, did not include Newstart and youth allowance. Why were they ignored? I understand that the government have changed position, and I welcome that they have included Newstart recipients and youth allowance recipients and a very long list of other recipients of specific payments, but the issue is: why did you exclude them in the first place? Why is it that the government have an ideology where they see jobseekers, I believe, as dole bludgers, 'leaners'—that is the term that we heard only a few years ago and one that has been a mantra in this place: 'lifters' and 'leaners'.

I think that that language needs to stop in this place. It is clearly not the case that many people who are looking for work are dole bludgers. They are there trying their absolute hardest to find employment. There are plenty of unemployed workers who, through no fault of their own, lose their jobs because their employer goes bankrupt or their factory shuts down. When you live in a regional area, there are not as many options as in metropolitan areas to find employment.

For example, in South Australia, the Big W distribution centre in Monarto is closing. This made the newspapers this week in South Australia. This is just outside my electorate. However, many of the people who are employed there are from inside my electorate and have been employed there for a number of years. I understand that there is hope that many workers will be redeployed, but the closure of the distribution centre is patently not their fault. Neither will it be their fault if they need to apply for Newstart, which I may say is an incredibly difficult process and one that unnecessarily takes many, many weeks to do.

The level of Newstart is also not keeping families above the poverty line, because it is not keeping pace with the cost of living. The Business Council of Australia, the Australian Council of Social Service and former Prime Minister John Howard have said that we need to look at raising the Newstart rate. When you have that collective, you know that there is a problem. This should be above politics. It needs to be urgently addressed. I know that recently, when there was a motion in here from Labor with respect to the payments, the minister was saying to Labor, 'Yes, but you're not saying you're going to lift Newstart.' Well, neither are the government, and they should. The government should be leading from the front on this. It beggars belief that both parties have not moved with respect to Newstart. It will lead to more jobs because people will be able to be job ready, and you can't be job ready on the current Newstart amount.

I support mutual obligations for jobseekers. No-one should ever expect to receive a free ride, but jobseekers do need an adequate level of financial support to effectively search for work and pay for their basic necessities while they are looking for work.

It is for these reasons that I am pleased that the energy assistance payment is being extended to more recipients of Centrelink. While I support this bill, I strongly urge the government to consider all the needs of all vulnerable Australians and to look to raise the rate.

]]>2019-04-03T10:34:00+00:00Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019, Excise Tariff Amendment (Supporting Craft Brewers) Bill 2019; Second Reading | Bills | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-04-02.139.1&m=735#g140.1
The electorate of Mayo is a hotspot for craft brewers and they are important in growing the tourism industry for us in our region. They complement our region's reputation for fine wines, gins,...The electorate of Mayo is a hotspot for craft brewers and they are important in growing the tourism industry for us in our region. They complement our region's reputation for fine wines, gins, ciders and spirits. As a multitude of ministers can attest, I have been a very persistent advocate for a fair deal for the craft brewers in my electorate, so I warmly welcome the Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019 and the related bill, which puts my key recommendation into law. I first wrote extensively to the then Treasurer, now Prime Minister, about the unique challenges that craft brewing businesses face: a thoroughly complex excise regime and the resultant cash flow management challenges that put a brake on expansion plans; market access concerns with pubs and clubs inevitability giving preferential treatment to the big market players; and, critically, a higher rate of excise being levied against the smaller kegs that craft brewers prefer to use. It is ridiculous and fundamentally unfair that a higher rate of tax existed on smaller kegs than on larger kegs. Of the multitude of issues faced by craft brewers, I made levelling this playing field my primary objective. I followed up on my correspondence with numerous meetings with government and I lodged detailed questions in writing on the Notice Paper. Finally, unrelenting persistence and the value of reasoned and logical policy reform shone through.

It will come as no surprise that I warmly welcomed the government's decision and announcement to finally level this playing field. No longer would craft brewers have to pay more, simply because they wanted to ship their beer in smaller kegs. I know that I have not been the only advocate. I acknowledge in particular the member for Grayndler—I do not have a beer named after me!

An honourable member: Yet!

Yet! I recognise the efforts of many in this chamber in getting a fair deal for craft brewers. I also want to acknowledge the efforts of Corinna and Frank from the award-winning Prancing Pony Brewery in Mount Barker. If you are in Mount Barker, please get along. It is a fantastic venue. They first approached me to discuss the challenges their sector faces. Corinna and Frank have spoken to me about how big a win these changes are for them and their business. The changes give them the opportunity to sell their products into smaller venues and have the occupational health and safety advantage of moving kegs that weigh 35 kilograms rather than 65 kilograms. This legislation is the culmination of the collective efforts of many in this chamber and beyond this chamber and I therefore commend the bill to the House.

]]>2019-04-02T20:44:00+00:00National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Worker Screening Database) Bill 2019; Second Reading | Bills | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-04-02.108.2&m=735#g110.1
Last time we were in this parliament, the Minister for Families and Social Services stated that the NDIS was now serving over 250,000 people across Australia and the Prime Minister touted that...Last time we were in this parliament, the Minister for Families and Social Services stated that the NDIS was now serving over 250,000 people across Australia and the Prime Minister touted that the scheme was one that provided choice and control for disabled Australians.

At the time of that statement, the government had extended question time in what was widely believed to be a deliberate attempt to delay a vote on the establishment of a royal commission into the abuse of disabled Australians. What neither the Prime Minister nor the minister responsible discussed during the many opportunities provided during that sitting fortnight were the 184 incidents of abuse and neglect reported to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, the 62 reports of expected or unexpected deaths, the 91 reports of injuries, the 34 complaints against staff and providers, and the 75 cases of unauthorised restraint. All of these were in just the three-month window between July 2018 and the end of September 2018.

We, as legislators, have a duty to protect the most vulnerable people in our society. If we won't show the leadership that our communities expect, then we condone the poor behaviour of others through our wilful blindness: the behaviour you walk past is the behaviour you accept. However, the government eventually relented its opposition to the royal commission, and I note the recent announcement that the government will commit the resources needed to ensure a thorough investigation of the issue.

The exploitation of vulnerable people was set out in excruciating detail at the royal commission into institutional child sex abuse and the royal commission into banking and financial services. No doubt, we will uncover further abuses in the royal commission into aged care. The abuses may have been prevented if only we had shone a light on these issues earlier and if we had listened to those who had spoken out and given a voice to those who were too afraid to do so.

I welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to investigate the abuse and neglect of people with a disability, and I am pleased to see the government taking action through the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Worker Screening Database) Bill 2019 to prevent others from suffering the same fate. The bill will enable the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to establish and maintain a nationally consistent database for worker screening of people who provide NDIS supports and services through a registered NDIS provider or for those who self manage. Current worker screening arrangements are state based and vary in quality, with some states not recognising clearances given by other states.

The NDIS commission will be responsible for maintaining the database, which will record all cleared and excluded applicants from all states and territories. It will also enable national ongoing monitoring of cleared applicants' criminal history records to ensure that worker screening units can assess and respond in a timely manner to the risk posed to participants. This is an important step forward in ensuring that NDIS participants are treated with dignity and respect, and in protecting their welfare as vulnerable members of our community. However, there is a long way to go.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the work of individuals, such as the former member of the South Australian Legislative Council, the Hon. Kelly Vincent and Senator Jordon Steele-John, who have long campaigned for the rights of disabled Australians.

]]>2019-04-02T17:54:00+00:00Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2018-2019, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2018-2019, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019; Second Reading | Bills | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-04-02.26.2&m=735#g27.1
Last week, I finished the last of 21 community forums across my electorate, from Kingscote in Kangaroo Island to Victor Harbor on the southern Fleurieu Peninsula and right up to Houghton and the...Last week, I finished the last of 21 community forums across my electorate, from Kingscote in Kangaroo Island to Victor Harbor on the southern Fleurieu Peninsula and right up to Houghton and the Lobethal communities at the other end of my electorate. Over the course of March, I heard from over 500 people at the forums. They were from all ages and backgrounds, from school-age environmental campaigners to self-funded retirees. Despite their differences, they all wanted the same things: action on climate change, access to quality education and affordable health care, and a focus on regional infrastructure. We have many of South Australia's fastest growing communities in Mayo—Mount Barker, Aldinga and the south coast—and we need to ensure that our roads, schools and hospitals will meet the growing need of our regional communities.

For the Kangaroo Island community, access to health care is indeed an urgent matter. The island's sole medical practice is based in Kingscote. It is difficult to secure an appointment with the GP due to the demand for services. The residents must also contend with travel costs and time spent travelling to and from Kingscote. I'd just like to say that Kingscote and Kangaroo Island, as a community, now no longer have any form of public transport across the very large island, which is deeply concerning. That's why I'm calling on the federal government to provide seed funding for a trial of a GP outreach service based in Kingscote that could also travel to Pandana, Penneshaw and, indeed, American River. Affordable access to high-quality health care is an issue felt keenly across my electorate, with the shortage of GPs resulting in the downgrading of emergency and after-hours services in a number of community hospitals. And that's why I'm calling on the government to make a significant investment in the Mount Barker hospital emergency department.

I do welcome the announcement of $8.6 million that was provided for the expansion of the emergency department, but many experts in the community believe that this is not enough. This is really just a bandaid solution. Based on the seven per cent population share of the nation, SA alone should have received $93 million of the government's proposed $1.3 billion community hospital program. So $15 million for a hospital infrastructure project that serves a local population catchment of well in excess of 80,000 people—and particularly as Mount Barker itself is set to grow to 55,000 people—is not only fair and reasonable but means that our community will receive the level of health care that it needs and deserves. With respect to health care, there is such a difference between whether you live in metropolitan South Australia or in regional South Australia. We really are treated as second-class citizens.

Dental care is often overlooked, but it is a fundamental aspect of health care. Unlike when you visit your GP, or even for a trip to the hospital, the majority of the costs for a visit to the dentist are funded by the patient, with Australians paying 58 per cent of out-of-pocket costs of dental care, compared to around 12 per cent for a GP visit. Because of the cost, over two million people avoided or delayed going to the dentist, and the situation is particularly challenging for those on low incomes, like our aged pensioners. That is why I'm committed to seeing the federal government fund a voucher system that enables people on the age pension to claim up to $1,000 for dental care in any two-year period. That must be able to be delivered in their own local community and that's why the voucher system that exists for those up to 18 years of age should, I believe, also be there for age pensioners. This should be the first of many steps in creating affordable access to dental care for all Australians.

The greatest policy failure of our current generation and of this parliament is our inability to move on climate change. No other policy issue has been plagued by such partisan attacks and no other policy issue has heralded the repeated fall of Australian prime ministers. Mayo is already feeling the effects of more volatile rainfall, with flash-flooding becoming a regular occurrence. Our communities on the Lower Lakes and beyond know only too well the devastation caused by drought. However, the lack of large-scale government support for long-term environmental rehabilitation and futureproofing means we are doomed to see the same story of agricultural and environmental distress repeat itself. My coastal communities are increasingly concerned and affected by king tides, severe storms, coastal erosion and sea level rise. My coastal councils are desperate for assistance because this is a problem that local governments simply do not have the financial capacity or expertise to address.

But, as is often the case, the community has provided the leadership that is so sorely lacking from government. Community environmental NGOs provide hundreds of thousands of hours of dedicated volunteer labour and a very cost-effective way of leveraging funding for maximum environmental benefit and effect. However, federal government funding for these organisations has been irregular—it has been scattergun. It has been diminishing the ability of our community environmental NGOs to maintain their capacity and provide consistent environmental assistance. A funding floor will guarantee that capacity will be sustained and long-term community and environmental projects can be started and finished.

It is an important truism to state that education is critical to the future prosperity of our community. Education creates so many social benefits, including better employment outcomes, lower crime rates, improved civic engagement, reduced rates of drug addiction and healthier families. Transitioning young people from schooling to further education, whether that be vocational education and apprenticeships, on-the-job training or indeed tertiary education, is a major predictor of their future success. I know from my previous work in the youth sector and my regular meetings with local educators that we need urgent capital upgrades to Mount Barker and Victor Harbor TAFE SA campuses. If we don't act now, the ageing TAFE facilities will significantly restrict the quantity and quality of courses they can offer our young people, impacting severely on their future. It is utterly ridiculous that in my community, where we have one of the fastest growing regions, being Mount Barker, young people cannot do any construction courses at the local TAFE. It just beggars belief. If we want our young people to stay in our regions and in South Australia, we need the major parties to invest in quality training. That's why I'm calling on the government and the opposition to make an investment of more than $500,000 in Mayo's TAFEs. It's not a huge amount of money, but it will mean the world of difference.

We must ensure that our public schools have the resources they need to meet the increase in demand, and that is why, as the education spokesperson for Centre Alliance, I negotiated an extra $424 million for South Australian schools through the Gonski 2.0 education reforms, with an extra $66 million for Mayo schools. But we need more. Schools across my electorate, from Eastern Fleurieu School in Strathalbyn to Mount Barker South Primary School, are at capacity. Multiple classes are being jammed into busy libraries or forced outside even during heatwave conditions. This simply should not be happening in a modern country like Australia. I am committed to improving education outcomes for Mayo and I will work with all levels of government to deliver fairer and stronger funding for our schools.

Finally, as a regional and rural electorate and with limited public transport options, it's imperative that our local roads are maintained. It is unacceptable that I have constituents saying that their cars are actually being damaged as a result of our local roads falling into disrepair or that their friends won't come and visit them because they need a four-wheel drive to do so, and that's in places that are 50 kilometre or less, as the crow flies, to the city. To account for this inequity, South Australia for many years received supplementary road funding from the federal government. This funding recognised that South Australia had more than 11 per cent of the nation's local road network but received less than five per cent of national road funding. The previous Liberal government cut this funding in 2014. Centre Alliance successfully fought for the reinstatement of the supplementary road funding in South Australia in 2017, but that funding is coming to an end. Once that funding was reinstated, South Australia's regional councils received an extra $40 million over two years to assist with maintaining our extensive local road network. This funding is due to expire at the end of this financial year, on 30 June 2019. It is imperative that the government commit to extending this funding. It is fundamentally unfair that South Australia is left behind with respect to regional road infrastructure. I will continue to work hard for a better deal for our regional and rural communities right across Mayo.

]]>2019-04-02T13:17:00+00:00Future Drought Fund Bill 2018, Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-02-21.41.1&m=735#g48.1
I want to make sure that the House is very clear that the projects under this bill actually won't start until 2020, so I think we need to make sure that we are accurate in what we're saying here....I want to make sure that the House is very clear that the projects under this bill actually won't start until 2020, so I think we need to make sure that we are accurate in what we're saying here. I say to the member for Grayndler: with the greatest of respect, no deal has been done in relation to this. I have, in my electorate, very sadly, farmers who are taking their lives, and we do not have the drought that is in Queensland and New South Wales.

I would also like to say with respect to the amendments from the member from Indi that this shows why we have a crossbench. You have a piece of legislation, and we see it as our role to work with the government of the day to make that legislation better. That is something that has happened in the Senate for many, many years. We see that as our role here. Everyone has the right in this House to vote as they please with respect to how their constituents expect them to vote on legislation.

I would like to say that the member for Indi is leaving us in this great place, and it has been a great pleasure to work with her on these amendments. I give great respect to her for the work she's done on this. We do this as a crossbench with very limited resources. Congratulations to the member, and I look forward to this bill proceeding in the House.

]]>2019-02-21T12:51:00+00:00Future Drought Fund Bill 2018, Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-02-21.41.1&m=735#g43.1
I second the amendment of the member for Indi, and I&#8212;I second the amendment of the member for Indi, and I— ]]>2019-02-21T12:44:00+00:00Future Drought Fund Bill 2018, Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018; Second Reading | Bills | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-02-21.36.2&m=735#g36.3
I applaud the government for taking a forward-leaning position on drought mitigation by creating a future drought fund. Climate change projections indicate a permanently hotter future for...I applaud the government for taking a forward-leaning position on drought mitigation by creating a future drought fund. Climate change projections indicate a permanently hotter future for Australian farmers, accompanied by more extreme droughts, and I wholeheartedly agree that steps need to be taken now to help futureproof Australia's agricultural communities. We know drought all too well in South Australia. My electorate at the end of the Murray is still recovering both environmentally and economically from the millennium drought. Sadly, I cannot say that the federal government has been forward-leaning on the management of the greatest freshwater resource our country has available to it: the Murray-Darling Basin.

The Menindee Lakes have been the latest casualty. Those who have the most to lose from alterations to the management of the river say it is all the fault of the drought. It is not all the fault of the drought. No-one has denied that the drought has contributed to this situation and it has contributed to fish kills. However, some of those fish were 80 years of age, and we know we've had many, many droughts since then.

Ultimately, there is one fundamental challenge to the management of the Murray-Darling river system that our country leaders are yet to accept and acknowledge: more water is needed for environmental flows to keep the Murray-Darling River alive. Along with a historic cycle of droughts on this continent, political leadership is creating a man-made drought through poor management exacerbated by climate change. If the river dies, all of the crops, the fish and, ultimately, the communities will die as well.

Sadly, I do not mean this figuratively. We know the mental health toll the drought takes upon rural communities. It is an issue I investigated with my private member's bill on rural finance reform that sought to create a level playing field between the banks and farmers in times of financial hardship. The report of the Australian Academy of Science on the recent Menindee Lakes fish kills is impeccable and yet another canary in the coalmine in the ailing health and dwindling resilience of our Murray-Darling river system. If only science was actually used to guide our decisions on the river's management and not just politics, we wouldn't be where we are today. It is illuminating which groups have come out attacking the report of the Australian Academy of Science.

The Australian Academy of Science concludes that it is unusual to see fish kills on this scale. Over a million dead fish have been killed in the Murray, and that is not remotely normal. Something is seriously wrong. Their report concludes:

The root cause of the fish kills is that there is not enough water in the Darling system to avoid catastrophic decline of condition through dry periods.

There is not enough water. Remember that our country is no stranger to drought, and yet the report concludes that too much water has been taken out of the system. There are eight headline recommendations in the report and the top recommendation is to:

… take urgent steps to ensure that there is sufficient flow—considering both quality and quantity of water—in the Darling River to prevent stratification and blue-green algal blooms.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is complex, and I acknowledge that these problems are hard to tackle easily.

However, there is one quick and necessary step: if we can remove the government water buyback caps, I think that will go a long way to ensuring that we can get more water in the river. Irrigators should be able to sell to who they want, and the government should be prevented from telling a participant in the market whether they can sell or not. Water buybacks are the quickest and most efficient way to safeguard regular flows and thus the livelihood of farmers and irrigators all the way along the Murray-Darling Basin.

A second, longer term, but equally urgent and necessary step is to properly incorporate the effects of climate change into the hydrological modelling of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We are kidding ourselves if we think climate change will not have a drastic impact upon the delivery of the plan. If the plan does not incorporate the science of climate change into its modelling, it is no real plan. We are spending much-needed money on drought resilience and on a drought fund because we realise that climate change exists and we realise that this drought will be one of many droughts, sadly, that our future Australia will experience.

Thirdly, the federal government needs to invest more in water science research. Despite being the driest inhabited continent in the world and becoming drier still, my understanding is that the government investment in water research has declined substantially in recent years. If that is correct, that is dumbfounding. I've lodged questions in writing to the relevant minister to get to the bottom of Australia's water research spending trajectory.

There is another topic I also briefly wish to discuss, which also relates to the pressure from drought and other circumstances facing farms, family farms and mum-and-dad farmers: the pressures that are exacerbated by ongoing drought. Yesterday, as I mentioned earlier in this chamber, I met with a young woman, Casey Treloar, whose family have walked away from their dairy farm in the electorate of Mayo, in my community, because they were brought to their knees financially due to years of low milk prices and rising costs. Casey's emotional Facebook video is about the plight of the dairy industry and of her family farm as she said farewell to the herd that her family had born and bred. When I spoke to Casey yesterday, she said that her dad has had these cows—he loves these cows and has hand-reared them—for 40 years. He knows every single one. Anyone who has been around dairy cows knows that every cow is different and they all have their own personality.

Casey's video has been viewed more than 1.5 million times. This means that the Australian community actually wants us to fix this. They want this place to fix the issues that our family farms are experiencing, the reasons why people are leaving dairy farms and the reasons why people are walking off the farm if they're producing horticulture. I applaud Casey for harnessing the subsequent media attention and trying to bring about change for the industry. I thank the dairy farmer advocacy group Farmer Power for not giving up the fight and bringing Casey to the parliament to plead for action.

We are running out of time. Farmer Power says that the price crunch has reached a critical point and farmers need emergency intervention. I personally don't support a floor price in milk. I think the member for New England articulated the argument quite well earlier today. We would start having floor prices in every industry. If we have one for dairy, others will then come along. But what we do need is to address the anticompetitive nature of the market that exists in Australia. I don't believe a floor price will fix the issues; however, I do believe divestiture powers will. We know that, both at processor level and at supermarket level, farmers in Australia have very few buyers and are beholden to whatever the buyer is willing to give them. I am open to a temporary levy to help our growers survive the coming years, but we need to act urgently on this in this place. We can't just wait for months. We know that many farmers, every day, contemplate leaving the farm or ending their life. We need action urgently. As I said, I believe that we need divestiture powers in this nation. We know that fines the major supermarkets have received from the ACCC in the past are considered really just part of the cost of doing business. In the end, the losers are our family farmers. We've had inquiries; we know what the problems are; now we need to act. I ask the government to urgently—urgently!—consider how we address this.

I would like to thank the member for Indi for the sensible amendments she's put forward with respect to this legislation. She has circulated those amendments and I understand that the government is supportive of them. We need to ensure that this package of money has very transparent governance arrangements around the fund, because transparency and a proper review of the drought resilience funding plans are imperative to ensuring that every dollar is spent well.

In closing, let me say I support the Future Drought Fund legislation, with the member for Indi's amendments, and I look forward to this money going to farmers in great need. I encourage anyone who cares about the Murray-Darling to read the Australian Academy of Science's report. The full title of the report is: Investigation of the causes of mass fish kills in the Menindee region NSW over the summer of 2018-2019. I seek leave to table this report.

Leave granted.

]]>2019-02-21T12:16:00+00:00Dairy Industry | Motions | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-02-21.3.2&m=735#g12.1
I won't take too much of the time of this House. I actually just want to acknowledge many of the comments of the member for New England. I have a number of dairies in my community, although the...I won't take too much of the time of this House. I actually just want to acknowledge many of the comments of the member for New England. I have a number of dairies in my community, although the number of those farming families is shrinking day by day. Yesterday I had the great privilege to meet a young lady called Casey Treloar. Casey comes from a dairy family down on the South Coast, and her family is leaving the industry.

I agree with the member for New England: what we need is not something radical; what we need is something that exists in many countries—the USA, the UK—and which former senator Nick Xenophon was very supportive of, and that's divesture laws. We need that when we are a nation where, as the member for Kennedy said, there are just a couple of processors in the dairy industry and a couple of buyers. I would urge every member of this House to read Malcolm Knox's book. It is called Supermarket Monsters: The Price of Coles and Woolworths' Dominance.

Let me tell you: we are crippling family farmers because we are not acting with divesture laws. That's where we need to go in the next parliament. We need to make sure that we have competition and protection when the duopolies are squeezing from the very top. The ones that hurt are the farmers down the bottom. I do not want to get to a time in Australia when my children and grandchildren cannot drink Australian milk. It's the same for apples. It's the same for every horticulture industry. It's the same right across the board. We are killing family farmers because we are not acting in this place. I would urge whoever is in government in the next parliament to make sure we put front and centre divestiture laws for the protection and peace of mind for a number of industries in the farming sector.

]]>2019-02-21T10:27:00+00:00Mayo Electorate: Health Care | Adjournment | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-02-19.117.1&m=735#g117.2
There is a well known quote: You can have all the riches and success in the world, but if you don't have your health, you have nothing. Survey responses in my community would show that health is...There is a well known quote:

You can have all the riches and success in the world, but if you don't have your health, you have nothing.

Survey responses in my community would show that health is the most important issue to us. More than 5,000 people have responded to my survey over my time as the member for Mayo in this parliament, and health is our No. 1 priority. I have repeatedly campaigned for greater access to affordable health care in Mayo. I have worked with the community to secure expanded headspace mental health centres for our young people and Medicare-rebate-eligible MRI service, 24-hour doctor service at our Mount Barker hospital and a Medicare service counter at Victor Harbor.

I've had many successes, but the lack of renal dialysis service in the Adelaide Hills was a problem that I was determined to resolve. The lack of dialysis services had a profound impact on the families in my electorate who grapple with the physical, emotional and financial burden of travelling to and from metropolitan dialysis services. Many of these people are not eligible for the Patient Assistance Transport Scheme. However, today Country Health has finally recognised the urgent need for a renal dialysis service in the Adelaide Hills, something I have campaigned on for over two years. Country Health will shortly place three dialysis chairs at the Mount Barker District Soldiers' Memorial Hospital. They will be co-located within the chemotherapy unit. Up to 12 patients will now be able to access dialysis service, saving these patients and their families at least 1,872 trips to Adelaide each and every year. This is just fantastic news for our community and will make a very real difference to those families.

However, we cannot rest. We always need to make sure we futureproof our health services, and the next priority is to upgrade the Mount Barker hospital emergency department. Local health professionals tell me that the emergency department is fast approaching the end of its life and will simply not be fit for purpose within 12 months, with the limited physical space already impacting on service delivery. For example, there are not enough consulting rooms. The resuscitation room is too small. The number of beds in the department should be doubled. The population in Mount Barker is currently 36,000 and is set to grow to over 56,000 by 2036—not far away for such a significant increase. With hospitals in our outer region such as Mount Pleasant and Strathalbyn reducing their emergency services, the pressure on Mount Barker hospital is immense and will only continue to grow as more and more people are forced to travel from the smaller satellite towns.

Providing health services to our region will often come at a disproportionately high financial cost due to smaller populations, but this should not justify the removal, reduction or refusal of essential services to those living outside of the metropolitan area. Rural health matters, and that is why earlier this month I wrote to the state health minister, the Hon. Steven Wade, to request that essential upgrades to the Mount Barker hospital emergency department be listed as a priority project and one certainly worthy of the federal government's $1.25 billion investment into regional hospital infrastructure through the federal government community health and hospital program. The upgrade of the Mount Barker hospital emergency department already forms part of SA Health's 10-year local health plan for the Adelaide Hills between 2011 and 2020 and has the full support of the Mount Barker District Council. And I won't stop there. I will continue to campaign for a Medicare-rebate-eligible MRI licence in Victor Harbor and an increased number of ambulances to service our communities.

I will say that going hand in hand with health services are aged-care services and we need to make sure that Mayo, as the oldest electorate in South Australia, has enough aged-care services, both residential beds and care in the home. As I said, we need to plan for our future.

So I will continue to fight to make sure our health services are able to meet the growing demand and the growing need, that they are fit for purpose and that they enable our medical professionals to deliver the highest possible standard of care to our community now and into the future.

]]>2019-02-19T19:40:00+00:00Mayo Electorate: Telecommunications | Questions without Notice | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-02-19.77.1&m=735#g77.2
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Communications. On 15 October last year the government called for applications for round 4 of the Mobile Blackspot Program....My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Communications. On 15 October last year the government called for applications for round 4 of the Mobile Blackspot Program. My community has more than 130 nominated blackspots and we nominated many for this round. The Department of Communications and the Arts website says the construction phase for round 4 will start early this year. Can the minister tell the House when the successful submissions for round 4 will be announced? And will the minister commit to a round 5? ]]>2019-02-19T15:07:00+00:00National Disability Insurance Scheme | Statements by Members | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-02-18.196.2&m=735#g196.3
I recently hosted an NDIS forum in my electorate, and I would urge every member in this place to do the same. I brought my community together, and together we heard from the NDIA. I'd like to pay...I recently hosted an NDIS forum in my electorate, and I would urge every member in this place to do the same. I brought my community together, and together we heard from the NDIA. I'd like to pay special mention to Cheryl Rollison from the NDIA, an incredibly professional woman who worked with my office to pull this together. What we found though was that there is enormous frustration over the rollout of NDIS plans, in particular that participants are not able to see their draft plan, which I find quite ridiculous. Those plans can have wrong birthdates or wrong names on them, and that can lead to weeks of delay and exclusion. We're also seeing that those plans do not have what is requested or needed. I spoke last week about a young gentleman in my electorate with spastic quadriplegia who was invited to get a gym membership—and he needs some help to open his front door.

I've asked the minister his position on this. He said that people have the ability to appeal and to go through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Families don't want to do this. I would urge this government: just allow participants to view their draft plan. It is not difficult. It will save the government an enormous amount of money, with people getting the right plan from the beginning. I urge this government to please listen to me: listen to our community. (Time expired)

]]>2019-02-18T16:00:00+00:00Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2018; Second Reading | Bills | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-02-18.143.2&m=735#g149.1
I welcome the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2017 and the protections that this bill will provide to individuals in the financial and corporate sectors who...I welcome the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2017 and the protections that this bill will provide to individuals in the financial and corporate sectors who seek to report wrongdoing. Whistleblower laws are there to protect those individuals who would, without measures like this bill, likely find themselves facing legal action for speaking out, drawing attention to misconduct in the workplace like that uncovered by Jeff Morris in 2008 while employed in the financial planning arm of the Commonwealth Bank. Because Mr Morris was brave enough to speak out, over $50 million in compensation has been paid out to victims of poor financial advice. But as a consequence, Mr Morris lost his job, his family and his health. He is a courageous man who paid a huge price.

While Australia does have a patchwork of protections spread across three separate acts, this bill will strengthen the existing whistleblower frameworks through two broad measures. First, it will consolidate and broaden the existing protection and remedies for corporate and financial sector whistleblowers. Second, it will create a whistleblower protection regime to ensure disclosure of information regarding breaches of tax laws or misconduct relating to an entity's tax affairs.

Before I turn to the substantive provisions in this bill, I want to acknowledge the work of former Senator Nick Xenophon and my Centre Alliance colleague, Senator Rex Patrick, for their work on this bill, which led to a significant improvement in the integrity of our private sector. Both have worked tirelessly to ensure individuals are not penalised for speaking out against misconduct when they see it—first, through former Senator Xenophon's support for the 2013 Public Interest Disclosure Act, a bill to encourage those in the Australian public sector who report suspected wrongdoing and then, second, through amendments to the 2016 fair work registered organisations amendment Act offering similar protection to whistleblowers. It was during the negotiations between government and former Senator Xenophon that the 2016 act that the government finally undertook to take a serious look at protections in the private sector.

This bill was also the culmination of a number of parliamentary inquiries involving the work of parliamentarians from both sides of the chamber and individuals such as Professor AJ Brown, who have generously shared their knowledge and expertise in this field, and I note Professor Brown is in the gallery today. Indeed, it was an earlier report prepared by Professor Brown and his colleagues at Transparency International that showed protections for private sector workers in Australia were actually on par with nations such as Russia and Saudi Arabia. Clearly these reforms are long overdue.

Many of the measures contained in this bill were previously identified in the unanimous and bipartisan 2017 report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, which undertook a comprehensive analysis of whistleblower protections in the corporate, public and not-for-profit sectors. This bill addresses 32 of 35 recommendations from that 2017 report and, may I say, it's quite rare for a bill to address that many recommendations so it's pleasing to see. But the recommendations not addressed include a single private sector act, the introduction of a reward scheme for whistleblowers and the establishment of an independent whistleblower protection authority. I understand that work will continue in these areas, and Centre Alliance will monitor the government's progress closely. Notwithstanding these omissions and the need for further reform, this bill does broaden the protections open to whistleblowers and it is an important step forward. The revelations from the royal commission into misconduct in the banking, superannuation and financial services industry highlight the importance of a robust whistleblower framework that encourages individuals to report wrongdoing without fear of reprisal.

In the final report, Commissioner Hayne drew attention to the culture of greed, and how this led to behaviour that fell well short of community standards. Commissioner Hayne said:

Rewarding misconduct is wrong. Yet incentive, bonus and commission schemes throughout the financial services industry have measured sales and profit, but not compliance with the law and proper standards. Incentives have been offered, and rewards have been paid, regardless of whether the sale was made, or profit derived, in accordance with law. Rewards have been paid regardless of whether the person rewarded should have done what they did.

Commissioner Hayne went on to note:

Misconduct will be deterred only if entities believe that misconduct will be detected, denounced and justly punished.

The royal commission has exposed the flaws in our financial sector, but the real work lies ahead. What is required now is cultural change.

The bill will address that cultural change by requiring all public and large companies to develop whistleblower policies that clearly set out what protections are available to whistleblowers, how and to whom a disclosure can be made and what steps the company will take to support and protect whistleblowers. It is effective and responsible whistleblowing that will foster integrity and accountability which, in turn, will deter and expose misconduct, fraud and corruption.

Part 1 of the bill seeks to achieve that aim by bringing the corporations and financial sector whistleblower regimes into alignment, and it broadens the category of people who are eligible for protection. Currently, the Corporations Act 2001 protects a current officer, employee or contractor of a company who makes a disclosure in good faith—meaning without a personal grievance about a breach of Corporations Law. That test has now been changed, and instead it will become a question of reasonableness rather than inquiry to the motives behind that disclosure.

Specifically, the whistleblower must have reasonable grounds to suspect misconduct or an improper state of affairs. Existing protections include some immunity from civil or criminal liability; or contractual remedies for making the disclosure, prohibitions or victimisation; and the right to seek compensation for damage from victimisation. There are also currently some restraints prohibiting the disclosure of a whistleblower's identity or the information disclosed. Similar protections exist within the financial sector whistleblower provisions for a disclosure concerning misconduct or impropriety in APRA related entities. The bill will ensure that these two similar sectors are now able to adopt a uniform approach to whistleblower protection by aligning the two legislative frameworks. The bill also extends the same protection to entities regulated by the National Consumer Credit Protection Act and the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act, which do not currently include any whistleblower protections. A clear and consistent approach to the protections provided to whistleblowers, as outlined in this bill, can give individuals the confidence they need to call out this type of behaviour that Commissioner Hayne has described.

Importantly, the bill will also amend the emergency disclosure provisions. Previously, a whistleblower was required to wait a reasonable time before making an emergency disclosure. This bill discards the opaque time limit placed on emergency disclosures. However, some limits remain. A disclosure must have been made previously to a regulator and the regulator then notified again prior to making the emergency disclosure. I note that the requirement to wait 90 days will remain for a disclosure that is to be made on the grounds of public interest. For example, should a person wish to disclose information to a journalist in the belief that it is in the public interest to do so, they must first notify the regulator or other designated recipient. If no further action has been taken after 90 days and the matter remains one of public interest, then the disclosure can be made to the journalist.

Whistleblowers will also have the opportunity to pursue compensation in the event that they have suffered a detriment as a result of their actions as a whistleblower. The ability to seek compensation is an acknowledgement that the service provided by whistleblowers often comes at great personal cost. To be clear, the protections set out in the bill do not extend to those individuals who would seek to use a whistleblower regime to further their own agenda or to settle personal grievances. The bill expressly prohibits protection for disclosures relating to individual personnel, employment or workplace grievances. Those disputes may well be legitimately impacting on the individual, but the focus of this legislative framework is the detection of misconduct, not misunderstandings or miscommunications.

The second aspect of the bill is also an important step forward. Part 2 of the bill amends the taxation amendment act to protect individuals who report noncompliance with tax laws or misconduct in relation to an entity's tax affairs. There is currently no explicit protection offered with respect to taxation matters. The amendments in relation to taxation matters will be broadly similar to those that relate to the corporate and financial sector. The impact of so-called white-collar crime should not be underestimated. In 2016 estimates prepared by the Attorney-General's Department consultation paper into prosecuting corporate crime, it was revealed that these crimes are costing Australia more than $8.5 billion a year. I'll just repeat that: $8.5 billion a year to our nation. To put that into context, this equates to 40 per cent of the total cost of crime in Australia.

But we know that the cost of corporate crime extends well beyond the hip pocket. As the New South Wales Law Reform Commission notes:

Given the pervasive presence of corporations in a wide range of activities in our society, and the impact of their actions on a much wider group of people than are affected by individual action, the potential for both economic and physical harm caused by a corporation is great.

The royal commission has proven just how widespread that harm can be. But this bill provides an opportunity for banks to earn back the public trust by implementing meaningful whistleblower policies so that no other employee has to suffer the same David versus Goliath battle that Jeff Morris had to endure. Instead, organisations can use whistleblowers as part of a comprehensive risk management policy and stop small problems before they impact on consumers.

Finally, I wish to acknowledge the contribution of Minister O'Dwyer, the member for Higgins, for this significant reform and note that it was the minister's willingness to engage in open and frank negotiations over a long period of time with Centre Alliance that enabled this bill and the benefits that it will provide to the public to come to fruition. I commend this bill to the House.

]]>2019-02-18T18:50:00+00:00Export Control Amendment (Banning Cotton Exports to Ensure Water Security) Bill 2019; Second Reading | Bills | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-02-18.19.1&m=735#g19.2
I move: That this bill now be read a second time. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is our greatest river system in Australia and it is in crisis. The river and its communities remember the social,...I move:

That this bill now be read a second time.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is our greatest river system in Australia and it is in crisis. The river and its communities remember the social, economic and environmental devastation brought by the millennium drought. We fear the next time the drought stalks the lower basin, the river will not be healthy enough to survive and our beautiful lakes, river and Coorong will be left to die.

Now it's the Menindee Lakes. Up to one million fish are dead, and the community there is angry and suffering, wondering how this happened to them. Grasp the magnitude of it for a moment, if you will: one million dead fish, many of them 70- and 80-year-old cod.

Let no-one pretend that we could not see the slow death of the Murray-Darling coming for us. Climate change is upon us and making our continent drier. Upstream river towns are on water restrictions. We are drawing too much water from the river system, and we need to set new, more realistic and sustainable targets. I represent the downstream hostages of the upstream water theft and corruption. If we do not act now, our river will die. Then there will be no water for anyone, not even the big irrigators with all their paid-up political connections.

South Australia wants the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to endure, but the plan shouldn't be chipped away, with no regard to science, purely for political expediency. South Australia and my electorate have the most vulnerable part of the river. We have so much to lose. Our nation has so much to lose.

The South Australian Liberal Party, who I once believed was a champion for rural and regional South Australia, is silent over this—silent over the actions of their eastern state colleagues. There has been no serious or state government response to the recent report of the South Australian Murray Darling Royal Commission. That is criminal. We need action.

But, without action, we have this bill, the Export Control Amendment (Banning Cotton Exports to Ensure Water Security) Bill 2019. This bill suggests one possible drastic step that we may need to consider; namely, banning the export of cotton—that thirsty Australian mega-crop, cotton. The role of cotton production in the Murray-Darling Basin cannot be ignored. We are effectively exporting the driest continent's most previous resource—water. Although radical, this bill seeks to open a conversation about the future of water usage in the basin.

The overwhelming majority of Australian cotton is grown in the Murray-Darling Basin and approximately 90 per cent of cotton grown in Australia is exported, mainly to China and India, for value-adding. It is not value-added here.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 21.4 per cent of the Murray-Darling Basin irrigation water was used in cotton production in 2005-06. In 2008-09 the ABS reported that cotton accounted for the highest proportion of irrigated water used in the Murray-Darling Basin, 23 per cent—exceeding that used for general crops, which was 20 per cent, and for pasture and grazing, which was 15 per cent. In 2010-11, the ABS further reported that:

Cotton is certainly king in that part of the basin. It further reported:

Given that there is hardly any cotton grown outside the Murray-Darling Basin, the percentage of water used for cotton production in the basin is likely to be considerably higher. Cotton is the single-largest piece of the challenge in managing the water resources of the Murray-Darling Basin. And although the royal commission report does not single out cotton, in the absence of Commonwealth, state and territory government commitments to fully implement the commission's recommendations that is precisely what must be done in Australia's national interests and for the health of our rivers if they do not implement the recommendations. As I said, we are desperate. We want action, and the first action must be for the findings of Bret Walker SC's royal commission to be implemented.

I might go to the work of Maryanne Slattery from the Australia Institute. In January this year she presented her findings in the report, A fish kill QandA: the questions, answers and dead fish in the Menindee Lakes. She said:

Q: Where to from here?

A: There should be an urgent public assessment of:

1. Whether the level of extraction in the Northern Basin is sustainable, particularly with respect to floodplain harvesting.

2. How to manage Menindee lakes in a future with less inflows in the small to medium flow range?

3. If the past practice of managing lakes to minimise evaporation still relevant if the lakes will dry more often and require more water to refill?

Finally, transparency and accountability is required if there is any chance for governments and water agencies to restore confidence in the implementation of the Basin Plan: …

Her findings were:

1. All decisions of the Basin Officials Committee should be made public;

2. The annual reviews of the River Murray Operations by the Independent River Operations Review Group should be made public;

3. The annual reports of the River Murray Operations by the River Murray Operations should be made public;

4. The size and location of all private storages in the Northern Basin should be made public, along with actual storage levels; and

5. A genuinely independent assessment and quantification of the causes of the reduction on low and medium flows in the Barwon-Darling should be completed as soon as possible and made publicly available.

The secrecy around the whole Murray-Darling Basin Plan is terrifying, it really is.

Centre Alliance's firm view is that significant changes need to be made so that the environmental health of the river system with respect to water and food security must be our national priority. It is regrettable that we should have to consider such a measure in the absence of real commitments to implement the royal commission's recommendations and put the health of the Murray-Darling first and foremost. This is something that must be considered in Australia's national interest.

My mother is a wise woman. When I was a child, she would say to me, 'There is enough for every man's need, but not for every man's greed.' And there is no truer example of this than the overallocation of the Murray-Darling and the wilful neglect and turning away by various state and federal governments. I commend this bill to the House.

]]>2019-02-18T11:20:00+00:00Office for Regional Australia Bill 2019; Second Reading | Bills | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-02-18.17.1&m=735#g17.26
It is my great pleasure to second this motion, and I congratulate the member for Indi on her work over the last six years with respect to rural communities across Australia. I reserve my right to...It is my great pleasure to second this motion, and I congratulate the member for Indi on her work over the last six years with respect to rural communities across Australia. I reserve my right to speak.

Debate adjourned.

]]>2019-02-18T10:57:00+00:00Banking Amendment (Rural Finance Reform) Bill 2019; Second Reading | Bills | House debateshttp://openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-02-18.15.1&m=735#g15.2
I move: That this bill be now read a second time. All too often we have heard the stories of farmers who, during drought times or difficult times, are forced into debt and despair. For some,...I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

All too often we have heard the stories of farmers who, during drought times or difficult times, are forced into debt and despair. For some, their worlds come crashing down completely; the suicide rate is desperately high among farming families, many times the suicide rate of non-farming families.

Primary producers ride the swell of international commodity markets, exchange rates and weather, their fortunes so often dictated by factors well beyond their control. Many family farmers hope to make profits over a multi-year cycle by using their good years to build a financial buffer to see them through the bad. Capital rich and income poor, the ability of smaller primary producers to pay their creditors is reliant upon these profits in the longer-term cycles.

Banks have not always been accommodating to these vagaries as faced by farmers; everyone in a rural community during a downswing would have heard the stories of woe where banks have not been willing to throw farmers a lifeline so as to protect their loan book. Banks have an obligation to their shareholders and cannot be expected to prop up failing farms more than they can be expected to prop up any genuinely failing business.

I appreciate that not all institutional lenders have tightened the screws on their struggling customers, but, taken as a collective, it is fair to say that the banks and other lending institutions have not made it any easier for their rural customers. We only have to look at the findings of the recent banking royal commission for examples. Horror stories that came out of that banking royal commission proved the farmers right—that banks were giving them and other customers a raw deal.

I first introduced this bill back in 2017. I went to the National Party and I said: 'This is your constituency. This is my constituency. We need to make change.' And I heard nothing. I received no interest from government in helping to level the playing field between farmers and banks. I was a relatively new member of parliament and I had already heard the horror stories and about the lack of a fair playing field for farmers. As I said, now the royal commission report has been released, it is my hope that the government will suddenly become interested in this.

The banks have behaved badly, and this bill addresses the real problems. Albeit nearly two years later, we can act now. We could use this week to get this legislation through.

For example, primary producers are often given the barest minimum of notice of sudden and unilateral variations to their loan agreements; re-evaluations of farmers' assets given as security to a loan can be undertaken by the bank, and often they reclassify the value of the asset and they really don't give the farmers any time at all to try and seek other finance. These material adverse change clauses in their contracts and terminations of loans really are incredibly unfair, because what we need to remember here is that for small farming families—I'm talking about loans for under $5 million—their farm and their business is also their home.

Farmers are not asking for non-commercial rates to access credit or unfair advantage; financial lenders, after all, need to remain competitive. But we are talking about addressing a policy imbalance because the pendulum has gone back too far the other way.

Further, I recognise that there is a marked difference between large commercial lenders and those small, family farmers, and that is why my bill is contained—it is just properties under $5 million.

This bill takes a reasoned, measured approach to lending and to levelling the playing field between lender and lendee because we want to make sure banks are still willing to lend money to farmers—that's another heartache. We find that there's very little interest when your postcode starts with, in South Australia's case, 51. It certainly is very difficult to obtain finance.

As I said, this bill takes as measured approach. The bill seeks to:

I might just say I actually raised this bill with the National Farmers' Federation. I was deeply disappointed they had no interest. This is about small farming families, and we need small farming families. We don't need the whole of Australia's farming industry to become large corporate agribusinesses. It's the farming families that shop local. It's the farming families that stay in our rural towns.

The contents of this bill may seem technical and dry, but they are long overdue and will result in genuine equity for smaller farmers and other primary producers. It is high time for the coalition government, which purports to represent rural constituents fairly and even-handedly, to give the bill its full and wholehearted support, particularly in the wake of the findings of the banking royal commission. And I look forward to working with any member of parliament or party that appreciates the importance of giving farming families and other small primary producers a fair and measured hand in their loan agreements with the big banks. Thank you.